Generative artificial intelligences such as ChatGPT and DALL-E, once considered science fiction in the belief that creativity was the reserve of human consciousness, now threatens the livelihoods of professional creatives, and to undermine democracy through misinformation. Its recent advent means that it is largely unregulated.
This demonstrates why we should take advantage of any opportunities to openly debate and consider all the implications of technologies which we know are on the horizon but will not be commonplace for years. One such technology that this would apply to would be in vitro gametogenesis.
In vitro gametogenesis is an assisted reproduction technology which involves the creation of gametes by converting somatic cells – skin, blood or hair – into pluripotent stem cells. Proof of principle has been demonstrated in experiments in mice at Kyoto University as early as 2012. With work towards human application of IVG being pursued by academic institutions as well as private companies such as Conception, it may not be an issue of if but when. Given that, our party at least should consider all the possible consequences of this technology, and how it should be regulated.
Fundamentally, IVG would cure infertility, overcoming many of the limitations of current ARTs such as in vitro fertilisation that are tied to the fertility of one or both parents. If someone’s fertility has been impacted by illness, physical injury or medical intervention, IVG would offer couples the chance of the pursuit of happiness in starting a family.
Moreover, IVG would go a step further by ending dysfertility. IVG experiments on mice also saw the birth of pups with either two biological fathers or two biological mothers. This could extend the right to parenthood usually enjoyed by heterosexual couples to gay, transgender, non-binary and intersex people, forgoing the compromises they have had to make in this aspect of life. Endorsing IVG would be another achievement in our advocacy of LGBT+ rights, alongside the repeal of Section 28 and the achievement of marriage equality.
Social and economic factors play significant roles in influencing decisions about starting families, with low affordable housing stock and insufficient salaries prompting many to delay or abandon such plans. Although we should ameliorate social and economic difficulties, IVG would allow greater agency for those wishing to postpone plans for parenthood by removing time limits imposed by menopause and andropause.
Our party’s Children, Families and Young Peoples platform endorses the extension of the definition of ‘family’ to reflect modern society and the provision of more practical assistance for working parents such as flexible access to childcare and greater parental leave rights. The additional endorsement of IVG would further strengthen our platform, particularly as a liberal counterproposal to hard right pronatalism which vaguely espouses increased birth rates to enable immigration restrictions and monoculturalism whilst opposing practical support.
Nonetheless, IVG poses several ethical conundrums. The capability and necessity of creating multiple embryos and the required use of gene editing – based on the current low success rates in mice – pose the risk of ‘new eugenics’ to the denigration of disability communities.
If viable for humans, many of IVG’s ethical concerns arise from its removal of biological limits on reproduction. IVG could enable nonconsensual parentality through somatic cell theft, with celebrities being cited as likely victims. It can also, as bioethicist Hank Greeley has stated, remove practical age limits. If permitting IVG access only for consenting adults would be universally uncontroversial, it would still have serious consequences for elder rights and posthumous reproduction which would need to be addressed.
In addition to allowing any couple to have biological children, ‘solo’ IVG could be employed to allow single individuals to become parents, whilst ‘multiplex’ IVG could allow children to have multiple genetic parents. These variations, of potential benefit to asexual and polyamorous people, may face controversy due to their respective technical requirements and societal attitudes towards each community.
On a more philosophical note, in granting a universal right to biological children, IVG may call into question what ‘family’ is, delegitimising emotive familial bonds such as those created through adoption or guardianship. Although I am not personally entitled to comment universally on such matters, there is also the issue of how fit with the beliefs of different religions.
Reasonable people can disagree over where lines could be drawn on IVG. Perhaps many of the ethical concerns will be non-issues by the time it becomes reality. After all, nearly five decades after Louise Brown’s birth, public and religious controversy surrounding IVF has largely evaporated, particularly as it has since allowed the births of over 12,000,000 people worldwide. Even so, our party should openly, respectfully and leisurely debate what the parameters of IVG should be and how such a stance would relate to the public. A lack of serious debate may serve to impede its development.
* Samuel James Jackson is the Chair of the Policy Committee of the Yorkshire and the Humber Liberal Democrats and had served as the Liberal Democratic candidate in Halifax during the 2024 general election.
2 Comments
An interesting op-ed. At present these techniques look a bit like mammalian cloning: technically brilliant, some success in mice, farm animals etc, but unlikely to be approved for humans because of high costs, low success rate and risk of birth defects.
I rather suspect IVG has more promise in regards to improved success rate and lowering risk of defects, but options like solo parenting (effectively becoming a self-fertilising hermaphrodite) do look really dangerous … basically an extreme form of inbreeding.
Obvious regulations would be that cell samples must be extracted in person, from someone verified to be an adult, able to give informed consent, after suitable genetic counselling and exploring of other options. Posthumous reproduction would probably be covered by the same rules as existing IVF (it’s almost never allowed).
I’d argue that it is more important that a baby is wanted and there is sufficient infrastructure for it to live an empowered life than how it is conceived. There might have to be a limit on how many children can be produced by artificial means. I suspect the legal system will need to get involved, especially when financial contributions and changes in circumstances are involved.